[Pants-of-dog]

Well you were disagreeing with me when I was simply saying that genetic clusters exist and that is how I define race. You insisted no such clusters are possible.

No.

You defined races as clusters.

I accepted that for the purposes of our discussion. I then read the source you cited (i.e. the Wikipedia article on human genetic clustering) and pointed out that your source defined clusters as arbitrary, variable, and unable to be organized into distinct groups.

So I agreed that clusters are possible, and I agreed with your source.

Please note: your source defines race as arbitrary, variable, and impossible to classify into distinct groups.

I hope you now understand my argument.

[ingliz]

I have not even been able to mention what makes races different

You don't seem to have a problem defining 'blackness' - "black people ... have darker skin than white people on average... have flatter noses on average... have bigger lips on average" and are "cannibals" with a low IQ and "frizzy hair".

What you have a problem with is defining 'whiteness'.

and

That would be a big problem when you are talking of a "white genocide."

How do you know whites are being genocided if you don't know/can't recognise who's white?

[Verv]

I think creating categories that help us classify things is always useful - whether it's music, ideology, culture, or people... And whether it's people in terms of their religions, or people in terms of their ethnic background.

The fact that race exists does not have to be ugly... And if we insist race does not exist, it does not mean that we have fixed any problems.

... But to me, the most important thing is just valuing how people describe themselves, and their own definitions that they bring into a discussion.

If someone insists race does not exist, I sometimes debate them a little, but lately I just accept it because I understand that drawing the line anywhere can become arbitrary. For instance, there are Saudi Arabians and Yemenis that clearly have some kind of black admixture, yet we'd insist they were Caucasians, and there is even the case where we can see Ethiopian women that have some clear Caucasian traits not unlike Indian woment hat may even be darker skinned than them. In Somali, for instance, they call people with very frizzy, typically African hair "Jareer" (which can both be endearing and an insult) and there are Somalis which have hair far more like Caucasians than other Africans...

Race exists on a continuum in ways that surprise me...

So, I would simply say that it makes sense to argue that racial distinction and categories can be arbitrary and that it has not been historically helpful so we can say that it does not scientifically exist...

And it also makes sense to point to something just as obvious: somebody who has four grandparents that are ethnic Norwegians standing next to someone with four grandparents that are ethnic Yoruba standing next to someone who has four grandparents that are ethnic Koreans standing next to someone who has four grandparents from Mexico who are, on average, 60% Spanish and 40% native standing next to someone who has four grandparents that were Tamils....

We all can see how these people are very distinct and we can probably guess as to who's who. Saying that they represent major trends in physical appearance is accurate. Saying that they have very distinct genetic makeup is also accurate. Pointing out that specifically 5 million people from a specific tribal group in Kenya have produced a crazy amount of long distance running stars perhaps because their genetics play a role in it is not an ugly thing... It actually seems to be factual, just like how Incan and Tibetan descent peoples will tend to have very large chest cavities because they have adapted to the extreme altitudes of their ancestral homeland...

Race exists conventionally but perhaps it does not exist ultimately, and the desire for it to be ultimately abolished in favor of a world with zero racial disharmony is beautiful although perhaps overly Utopian. And, maybe it is even the case that to get to that point we have to take serious the claims of racial discrimination, which inherently means recognizing conventional realities of race...

Like most things in life, it's probably best for us to recognize the limits of language and certainty, and to use our own intuition to weigh the intentions of people so that we can appropriately engage them on this topic.

[Verv]

Please note: your source defines race as arbitrary, variable, and impossible to classify into distinct groups.
.

I guess this statement irks me so much because it seems so obviously obtuse and prideful in its assertion rather than being honest about it...

A Korean, a Fang from Gabon, and a German are all very easily distinguishable and, given 1,000 ethnic Koreans, 1,000 ethnic Fang, and 1,000 ethnic Germans, we would have 100% accuracy in correctly distinguishing them. We would also be able to make some conclusions about trends in appearance.

We could also find trends in health - Fang people would likely be far greater to have sickle cell enema, Germans would have far greater likelihood of cystic fibrosis, and Koreans of Moya Moya...

Studies even suggest before that personality traits and temperaments might actually trend differently across cultures and races.

At least, it's being studied:

We propose a general model of heritable personality differences that conceptualises intelligence as fitness components and personality traits as individual reaction norms of genotypes across environments, with different fitness consequences in different environmental niches. We also discuss the place of mental health in the model. This evolutionary genetic framework highlights the role of gene‐environment interactions in the study of personality, yields new insight into the person‐situation‐debate and the structure of personality, and has practical implications for both quantitative and molecular genetic studies of personality.

European Journal of Personality

There is this famous thing from some time back:

Cultural stereotypes may be deep rooted in our genetic makeup, say scientists.

Common traits like British individualism and Chinese conformity could be attributed to genetic differences between races according to a new study.

The study, by the department of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, suggests that the individualism seen in western nations, and the higher levels of collectivism and family loyalty found in Asian cultures, are caused by differences in the prevalence of particular genes.

Daily Mail

Denying the genetic basis of physical differences, health, and even temperament because it doesn't balance out to something like 100% of West Africans are fast sprinters, all Scots-Irish are fat, etc., is just a silly approach.

There's probably something there.

Hell, we can even if we remove "race" as the mega-construct behind this and just talk about trends in differences between ethnicities, regions, etc., because it's certainly the case that a very specific tribe with a common ancestry in E. Africa are amazing long distance runners, a very specific culture (or group of cultures) in both the Tibetan plateau and the Andes have certain characteristics, etc.

Going on the "offensive" rather than speaking with some reserves about the existence of race always struck me as baffling.

"No, you are stupid - you should not see patterns! The patterns can't be real because I defined them out of existence & have some parlor tricks up my sleeve involving my own convenient lexicon and inability to concede anything..!"

But I will say this: it's a genre of argumentation well suited to some people in particular.

[Fasces]

@Verv. If you read this thread or the other it would be clear that nobody is saying that phenotypical patterns do not exist - just that they are not certain, and consequently, that grouping certain people together because of a few phenotypical similarities is arbitrary (your Fang from Gabon and an Aborigine from Australia would present as the same race in the US despite little genetic relation).

Patterns can exist - but "race" is a piss poor way of differentiating between people groups or genetic heritage.

[ThirdTerm]

There are genetic differences between human population groups but the concept of race is not grounded in genetics, created by anthropologists in the 19th century. Geneticists such as David Reich from Harvard prefer to replace “race” with ancestry or population, which is more scientifically accurate. The Office of Management and Budget recently announced the creation of new categories in the 2030 U.S. Census such as Asian and Middle Eastern or North African. MENAs were previously listed under the “White” category, based on the dubious Caucasian race theory. Asians were mistakenly grouped with Pacific islanders, whose ancestors left Taiwan around 5,000 years ago and admixed with Melanesians who are closely related with Native Australians, resulting in high Denisovan ancestry.

Demographic categories for the next census will include: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Middle Eastern or North African, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and White, the OMB announced.

In previous censuses, most people of Middle Eastern background were listed under the “White” category, and Hispanic people were considered an ethnicity, separate from race. People of North African descent did not have a clear individual category.

Thursday’s changes cap a nearly two-year process of collecting feedback from the public. More than 20,000 people gave comments for the changes, and the OMB held nearly 100 listening sessions across the country.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... ethnicity/

[Fasces]

There is no scientific information (genetics, phenotype, etc) of value given to you by the term 'black' that isn't given by 'Khoisan' or 'Ibo' or even 'Sub-Saharan African'.

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess this statement irks me so much because it seems so obviously obtuse and prideful in its assertion rather than being honest about it...

A Korean, a Fang from Gabon, and a German are all very easily distinguishable and, given 1,000 ethnic Koreans, 1,000 ethnic Fang, and 1,000 ethnic Germans, we would have 100% accuracy in correctly distinguishing them. We would also be able to make some conclusions about trends in appearance.

We could also find trends in health - Fang people would likely be far greater to have sickle cell enema, Germans would have far greater likelihood of cystic fibrosis, and Koreans of Moya Moya...

Studies even suggest before that personality traits and temperaments might actually trend differently across cultures and races.

At least, it's being studied:



European Journal of Personality

There is this famous thing from some time back:



Daily Mail

Denying the genetic basis of physical differences, health, and even temperament because it doesn't balance out to something like 100% of West Africans are fast sprinters, all Scots-Irish are fat, etc., is just a silly approach.

There's probably something there.

Hell, we can even if we remove "race" as the mega-construct behind this and just talk about trends in differences between ethnicities, regions, etc., because it's certainly the case that a very specific tribe with a common ancestry in E. Africa are amazing long distance runners, a very specific culture (or group of cultures) in both the Tibetan plateau and the Andes have certain characteristics, etc.

Going on the "offensive" rather than speaking with some reserves about the existence of race always struck me as baffling.

"No, you are stupid - you should not see patterns! The patterns can't be real because I defined them out of existence & have some parlor tricks up my sleeve involving my own convenient lexicon and inability to concede anything..!"

But I will say this: it's a genre of argumentation well suited to some people in particular.

Are you arguing that it is incorrect to say that “race” is arbitrary, variable, and humans cannot be organized into distinct subgroups through genetics?

[FiveofSwords]

No.

You defined races as clusters.

I accepted that for the purposes of our discussion. I then read the source you cited (i.e. the Wikipedia article on human genetic clustering) and pointed out that your source defined clusters as arbitrary, variable, and unable to be organized into distinct groups.

So I agreed that clusters are possible, and I agreed with your source.

Please note: your source defines race as arbitrary, variable, and impossible to classify into distinct groups.

I hope you now understand my argument.

Those are just words Wikipedia can get away with using because it isn't false, but it also does not imply what you might think it implies. It is very easy to misunderstand if you don't have a lot of experience with biological science.

Life forms evolve. This means they can't be categorized the same way you would categorize, say, cars that are made in some factory from scratch to perform some function. Life simply isn't as clean and simple as that. Everything is a gradual shift from one to another and what was once a sterring wheel might become a transmission over time...weird stuff like that.

The way genes work also is often very counterintuitive. A .5% difference in dna does not mean the life form is .5% different in it morphology and behavior...it could actually be radically different or it could be impossible to notice depending on what that dna does. You could make an organism fundamentally incapable of life by altering its dna just a tiny amount. None of this works the way a neophyte of the subject might intuitively expect that it works.

So of course there is always going to be something arbitrary around the subject of clusters in general...in a vague sense...but this is not limited to race it can also be said for species or family or genus or phylum or kingdom etc. If ants were sentient they would probably construct wildly different categories for life than we do, because they would just have fundamentally different reasons for categorizing life. But at the same time both models might be completely consistent and make the same basic predictions about the purely physical aspects...where particles are going to be located and how they move.

But for sure Wikipedia is going to harp on that aspect when discussing races of humans especially because USA ideology is fundamentally based on deconstructing group salience...and the people writing Wikipedia articles have been inculcated into usa ideology. So they are happy to take advantage of the connotations that the word 'arbitrary' would have on a normal human.

So sure, it is 'arbitrary' how many races you divide humans into. Does that mean there are no challenges for getting white and black people to coexist peacefully? Absolutely not. You might expect it implies that but it doesn't. Some orca like to eat seals and some orca prefer fish...as far as orca biology goes the difference is rather 'arbitrary'...but it would naturally mean a lot to you if you happen to be a seal.

And orca that hunt seals are somewhat fine tuned for that activity genetically, as is the case with fish hunters. And despite the fact that these two types of orca can breed with eachother and create viable offspring, and despite the fact they often occupy the same space and come across eschother a lot, they never do breed with eachother. Their genetics are very close to identical...much less objectively than the difference between white and black people. The most parsimonious explanation for their instinctive preference for purity is that the very specific adaptations relating to the 2 distinct activities would be blunted a bit. Would you wind up with orca that only eat the liver of seals? These objectively tiny differences actually matter a lot in the game of survival.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, taxonomy in general is also a social construct, like races. So we would expect to find arbitrariness, variability, and examples that do not fit into subgroups in others forms of taxonomy.

This does not change the fact that the evidence cited by @FiveofSwords shows that human genetic clustering (or “race”) is arbitrary, variable, and cannot be organized into distinct groups.

[FiveofSwords]

You don't seem to have a problem defining 'blackness' - "black people ... have darker skin than white people on average... have flatter noses on average... have bigger lips on average" and are "cannibals" with a low IQ and "frizzy hair".

What you have a problem with is defining 'whiteness'.

and

That would be a big problem when you are talking of a "white genocide."

How do you know whites are being genocided if you don't know/can't recognise who's white?

Lol I love the way you just shoehorned 'cannibal' in there when I never said that. Clearly you don't want to discuss anything rationally you just want to try to paint me as some mean hater of black people.

I absolutely can explain what I think makes people white and why we are unique as a people. The conversation simply made it impossible to get there...if you are denying evolutionary biology then of I cannot even begin to describe what white people are.

[ingliz]

you just shoehorned 'cannibal' in there when I never said that.

Yes, you did.

African cannibals

[FiveofSwords]

Yes, you did.

African cannibals

There is in fact a significant amount of cannibalism in the former British colonies of Africa. are YOU going to suggest that this is as indicative of black people's genetics as their frizzy hair is? Because I didn't imply that.

[Tainari88]

Yes, you did.

African cannibals

I read that from him too. Extremely racist against Black people. But he is not really against Black people. He can go and tell lies to others. I am reading what he writes. So far he has written in one thread about slaying his enemies and that politics is about getting in a power position and then killing his political enemies off. But his group is not violent. Yeah, right.

Then he talks about wanting to kill people. Equal opportunity killing because it does not necessarily have to be people of color. Yeah, right.

Then he says he knows a lot about genetics. He does not give credentials at all. Then he says he has a real authority Davenport who was into genetics. The man was rejected as being a racist by other British and European geneticists within his own ERA. In his own peer group. They questioned his facts and called them counterfactual and his research was basically trashed. But he is holding it up as the proof of objective conclusions about race.

Yeah right.

He floated the idea that if a woman gets pregnant by a man that is not of her same race that the baby is defective enough to be spontaneously aborted. Implying that if a pregnancy is from a couple that is of the same race that the fetus would be healthier and not be aborted. That is a vile lie of the worst sort.

The entire pregnancy for a woman can be risky. From start to finish because believe it or not, giving birth is not a problem free, anxiety free process. It is difficult and risky sometimes. That is why so many women died in childbirth before the days of family planning and contraception. The baby could have its umbilical cord wrapped around its neck, it could have a bad reaction to food poisoning, trauma, or the mother has some kind of fall or traumatic injury, and many other factors during the gestation period that affects the baby.

But the race of the father or the mother making the child naturally defective off the bat is the argument of a racist of the worst sort. No one believes that shitty lie either. Yeah, right.

Then he says I overestimate the capacity of the White Nationalists to fight the government that is on a kill all white people genocide campaign worldwide. That the situation is dire. That something has to be done. But he can't provide some article, link or video or a shred of evidence that there are gangs of people from the government or Black people or Latinos going door to door in white neighborhoods, shooting or killing or displacing white families en masse from their homes a la GAZA in Palestine. Denying them food, water, medicine, fuel, and housing, and work and killing lots of white innocent people to get to a neo Nazi. It is not happening. ZERO EVIDENCE.

But we are supposed to believe that string of lies as gospel truth. WHY SHOULD WE?

There are so many lies that he spouts it is incredible.

Holocaust never happened. Lie.

Israel is not a legit nation at all.

Colonialism did not really happen. Lie.

Slavery in the USA did not happen. Lie.

But, now he argues with @ingliz about cannibalism.

We already stated that cannibalism has happened in the USA by white people. Yes, white people. And there are cases of cannibalism in people in extreme situations and they are white.

In fact, if you examine a lot of Christian European traditions it is a form of cannibalism. How? The body of Christ is the wafer...the host. You are eating the Flesh of Christ symbolically so you can be part of the forgiveness of sins. The wine is actually the Blood of Christ. Cannibalism in Christianity in terms of symbolism. But the Africans are inferior and do primitive bad shit that no other race associated with whiteness has ever done in the history of MANKIND.

He has a filter against anyone who is Black, Latino or any other race he hates irrationally. The hater is him. And he can't accept it. He hates. He spreads lies.

Have some depth and try to argue with some decency. Not even @Verv who is a conservative Christian living in South Korea for years and likes hanging around Asians believes that white people can only live around other white people because they can only trust WHITE culture only.

Most of the stuff you write @FiveofSwords is either misleading via omission or is lacking a lot of objective scientific backing with real authorities in the present day....or they are just racist lies of the worst sort.

But we need to buy into it?

That is why you would do better going to the Trump rallies and talking your talking points of white power and white genocide with them. Most of the posters in these fora are married to people who are of different races than they are. Even the conservative ones. And most live outside of the USA racialist narrative that is going crazy lately in 2024.

The USA is only about 5% of the world. 95% of the world is not in that reality. Though your fear about the White Race going extinct is really about the need to take over the government and do a Hitler 2.0 ethnic cleansing campaign that is not about being humane. But about being foolish. And being immoral in the worst possible manner. It will also cost the USA its superpower status. Right now the BRIC nations according to Skynet are plotting to get rid of the petrodollar monopoly in the world.

If they are successful the threats about do what we say or else from the USA is going to be hard to keep up. It is about basic math. 850 million vs 3.3 Billion people markets. The numbers are hard to overcome.

[FiveofSwords]

Yes, taxonomy in general is also a social construct, like races. So we would expect to find arbitrariness, variability, and examples that do not fit into subgroups in others forms of taxonomy.

This does not change the fact that the evidence cited by @FiveofSwords shows that human genetic clustering (or “race”) is arbitrary, variable, and cannot be organized into distinct groups.

That is not quite true. It absolutely CAN be organized into distinct groups. The only necessary caveat would be that the clustering itself does not tell us, all by itself, which clusters are more or less important. That consideration woukd ultimately depend on why you are creating the category in the first place.

As an analogy we could certainly say that there is no intrinsic difference between life and non life. The only thing a materialist outlook would tell you is that both involve some pile of atoms. Scientists can actually disagree on whether a virus should be considered 'alive' and there is no purely 'scientific' answer to that question.

Does that mean we have no way to understand what murder is? Genocide? There is no mathematics you can do that will 'prove' that survival is preferable somehow to death...you cannot even define 'survival' or 'preference' or 'death' within a purely mathematical paradigm.

But if a person is using that argument in order to justify a deliberate genocide they are engaged in, they are bullshitting you. And you are stupid if you fall for it. If they really were as apathetic as they pretend about genocide, then there also would be no reason for them to influence the world enough to cause that genocide, and no reason for them to try to form an argument excusing it.

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords wrote:

As an analogy we could certainly say that there is no intrinsic difference between life and non life. The only thing a materialist outlook would tell you is that both involve some pile of atoms. Scientists can actually disagree on whether a virus should be considered 'alive' and there is no purely 'scientific' answer to that question.

You need to rethink this statement of yours. It is weak.

Biology states this:

A non-living thing is anything that was never alive. In order for something to be classified as living, it must grow and develop, use energy, reproduce, be made of cells, respond to its environment, and adapt. While many things meet one or more of these criteria, a living thing must meet all of the criteria.

LIVING/NON-LIVING
Science A-Z
https://www.sciencea-z.com › saz › format › single
PDF

The difference between a bacterial infection or bacteria is that bacteria is able to reproduce itself within the correct environment. A virus is a hijacker. It can't make new copies of itself. It has to enter the living cell of its host and rewrite the programming. Viruses are genius adapters. That is why HIV was tough to get a treatment going that would stop the advancement of the virus. It used the native cells of its hosts to rewrite the code and make more of its own.

You write like a person who never studied either biology or viruses at all. Your understanding is not very sophisticated Sword.

A rock and something like carbon is not alive. It never has been alive. It has a material basis. But it has to meet the above criteria to be considered alive. That is biology.

You can place the leaf of a tree or plant and examine it under a microscope. It has movement and it has living cells. It meets all the above criteria. Plants have very strong wills as well. They survive the worst environments because they are living things with wills.

You have a lot of false beliefs in many levels. I got to go and work for a bit.

How many lies are you going to come up with in one day?

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

What are you blathering on about now?

[FiveofSwords]

I read that from him too. Extremely racist against Black people. But he is not really against Black people. He can go and tell lies to others. I am reading what he writes. So far he has written in one thread about slaying his enemies and that politics is about getting in a power position and then killing his political enemies off. But his group is not violent. Yeah, right.

Then he talks about wanting to kill people. Equal opportunity killing because it does not necessarily have to be people of color. Yeah, right.

Then he says he knows a lot about genetics. He does not give credentials at all. Then he says he has a real authority Davenport who was into genetics. The man was rejected as being a racist by other British and European geneticists within his own ERA. In his own peer group. They questioned his facts and called them counterfactual and his research was basically trashed. But he is holding it up as the proof of objective conclusions about race.

Yeah right.

He floated the idea that if a woman gets pregnant by a man that is not of her same race that the baby is defective enough to be spontaneously aborted. Implying that if a pregnancy is from a couple that is of the same race that the fetus would be healthier and not be aborted. That is a vile lie of the worst sort.

The entire pregnancy for a woman can be risky. From start to finish because believe it or not, giving birth is not a problem free, anxiety free process. It is difficult and risky sometimes. That is why so many women died in childbirth before the days of family planning and contraception. The baby could have its umbilical cord wrapped around its neck, it could have a bad reaction to food poisoning, trauma, or the mother has some kind of fall or traumatic injury, and many other factors during the gestation period that affects the baby.

But the race of the father or the mother making the child naturally defective off the bat is the argument of a racist of the worst sort. No one believes that shitty lie either. Yeah, right.

Then he says I overestimate the capacity of the White Nationalists to fight the government that is on a kill all white people genocide campaign worldwide. That the situation is dire. That something has to be done. But he can't provide some article, link or video or a shred of evidence that there are gangs of people from the government or Black people or Latinos going door to door in white neighborhoods, shooting or killing or displacing white families en masse from their homes a la GAZA in Palestine. Denying them food, water, medicine, fuel, and housing, and work and killing lots of white innocent people to get to a neo Nazi. It is not happening. ZERO EVIDENCE.

But we are supposed to believe that string of lies as gospel truth. WHY SHOULD WE?

There are so many lies that he spouts it is incredible.

Holocaust never happened. Lie.

Israel is not a legit nation at all.

Colonialism did not really happen. Lie.

Slavery in the USA did not happen. Lie.

But, now he argues with @ingliz about cannibalism.

We already stated that cannibalism has happened in the USA by white people. Yes, white people. And there are cases of cannibalism in people in extreme situations and they are white.

In fact, if you examine a lot of Christian European traditions it is a form of cannibalism. How? The body of Christ is the wafer...the host. You are eating the Flesh of Christ symbolically so you can be part of the forgiveness of sins. The wine is actually the Blood of Christ. Cannibalism in Christianity in terms of symbolism. But the Africans are inferior and do primitive bad shit that no other race associated with whiteness has ever done in the history of MANKIND.

He has a filter against anyone who is Black, Latino or any other race he hates irrationally. The hater is him. And he can't accept it. He hates. He spreads lies.

Have some depth and try to argue with some decency. Not even @Verv who is a conservative Christian living in South Korea for years and likes hanging around Asians believes that white people can only live around other white people because they can only trust WHITE culture only.

Most of the stuff you write @FiveofSwords is either misleading via omission or is lacking a lot of objective scientific backing with real authorities in the present day....or they are just racist lies of the worst sort.

But we need to buy into it?

That is why you would do better going to the Trump rallies and talking your talking points of white power and white genocide with them. Most of the posters in these fora are married to people who are of different races than they are. Even the conservative ones. And most live outside of the USA racialist narrative that is going crazy lately in 2024.

The USA is only about 5% of the world. 95% of the world is not in that reality. Though your fear about the White Race going extinct is really about the need to take over the government and do a Hitler 2.0 ethnic cleansing campaign that is not about being humane. But about being foolish. And being immoral in the worst possible manner. It will also cost the USA its superpower status. Right now the BRIC nations according to Skynet are plotting to get rid of the petrodollar monopoly in the world.

If they are successful the threats about do what we say or else from the USA is going to be hard to keep up. It is about basic math. 850 million vs 3.3 Billion people markets. The numbers are hard to overcome.

It is deeply ironic that you bring up the people of gaza, as if you care about them. I happen to think the people currently targeting my own race are exactly the same people also committing genocide against the people of gaza. They just have to use a very different method for us because white Aryan people simply have greater potential power than palestinians and their military relies on us for weapon design and creation as well as for jannisary soldiers.

So thr palestinians and myself have a common enemy. At least I believe that. And you are actually trying to assist that enemy as much as you can by obfuscation and by using the propaganda and framing that helps them the most and absolves them of any responsibility.

So you are either just foolish, or you don't care as much about what is happening in gaza right now as you pretend. Most likely both, to be honest.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords wrote:



You need to rethink this statement of yours. It is weak.

Biology states this:



The difference between a bacterial infection or bacteria is that bacteria is able to reproduce itself within the correct environment. A virus is a hijacker. It can't make new copies of itself. It has to enter the living cell of its host and rewrite the programming. Viruses are genius adapters. That is why HIV was tough to get a treatment going that would stop the advancement of the virus. It used the native cells of its hosts to rewrite the code and make more of its own.

You write like a person who never studied either biology or viruses at all. Your understanding is not very sophisticated Sword.

A rock and something like carbon is not alive. It never has been alive. It has a material basis. But it has to meet the above criteria to be considered alive. That is biology.

You can place the leaf of a tree or plant and examine it under a microscope. It has movement and it has living cells. It meets all the above criteria. Plants have very strong wills as well. They survive the worst environments because they are living things with wills.

You have a lot of false beliefs in many levels. I got to go and work for a bit.

How many lies are you going to come up with in one day?

This is just a low info and unsophisticated comment that has probably been duplicated by countless people who are foolish and/or uneducated on biology.

The origins of life involved self replicating rna molecules composed of chains of amino acids. Your own distant ancestor was literally one of those molecules. They are no different in essence from the self replicating rna chain of a virus...and every life form 'produces its own energy' in exactly the same fashion that a virus does...I e. No life is a perpetual motion machine...and no life can be called a closed system that violates the fundamental principles of entropy and thermodynamics. Nothing, in fact, can actually 'produce its own energy' if that phrase is to be taken literally because that would violate well established laws of physics (laws of conservation). The transition from rna molecules to dna molecules, in fact, is called a 'phenotypic revolution' in the history of life...when molecule essentially hijacked the 'purpose' of another (I am only using anthropomorphic terms for simplicity)...And is in essence no different than what might occur with humans if we started used computer AI to edit our own genes...

So see you have no education into the depth and the nuance that might be involved in the question 'what is life?' Among people who actually do know stuff and have triple digit iqs. And there is certainly no way I could teach you here, even if you were botn with the intelligence to comprehend such dialogues, because what you would need is an actual education involving multiple years of study. You cannot get education from reading Wikipedia pages or watching curated state sanctioned YouTube videos.

[ingliz]

So th[e] [P]alestinians and myself have a common enemy. At least I believe that

So, besides making a fool of yourself on an internet forum, what are you going to do about it?